US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Who is Chait?
A writer for New York Magazine
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Trump's America.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/health/christian-health-care-insurance.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I didn't know this, but even Obama left some free competitive healthcare products in the market, out of the reach of nasty and unnecessary regulators.
I didn't know this, but even Obama left some free competitive healthcare products in the market, out of the reach of nasty and unnecessary regulators.
The market works, and regulations jack up prices for consumers!
However, big (state) govt is once again inserting its greedy tentacles into these voluntary transactions
In conclusion:
I would choose “freedom” over healthcare every time.In conclusion:
Good thread
The more I read the more I think the most simplistic views of the world - people who are openly evil are evil in every possible way, everything is a conspiracy - are correct. There is no need for nuanced understanding, the worst possible explanation is right, and never explain by incompetence what can be explained by malice.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The more I read the more I think the most simplistic views of the world - people who are openly evil are evil in every possible way, everything is a conspiracy - are correct. There is no need for nuanced understanding, the worst possible explanation is right, and never explain by incompetence what can be explained by malice.
Occam's Razor.
yup.
this entire story has disappeared, i try to read this stuff but i missed it too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Papers
it should be massive news confirming all the theories about how the gtvt sucks and lies!
it’s why I’m absolutely convinced that Russia have Trump under total control. There’s literally hundreds of examples of evidence that point to it. I‘m more interested in how the CIA are looking to mitigate it in the background without “plotting against the President”. It seems he’s fully aware of it too as each time he makes a move now it’s completely unannounced and blindsides even his own staff.
I still find that incompetence is a lot more common than malice in bad events big and small. Or even if not incompetence, then lack of sufficient competence. Malice does exist, but even the most malicious person as well as the most benevolent person, don't control all the cards/the whole game. As the saying goes "the enemy gets a vote", and the real world there are actually several people/groups in every situation that get to make their own play.
Even in this story you see Rockefeller trying to influence events, but he doesn't get everything he asks for, not even from the Reagan administration and much less from the Carter administration. We also arrived at the possibility of an October surprise exactly because the rescue operation failed, chance and incompetence rearing their head in again.
Just to note, none of this means that I find anything that Rockefeller/Kissinger were lobbying for at all good or moral. I can understand from the banker's perspective to try his utmost to reinstate the Shah after he foolishly invested so much with him, rather than just take the loss sitting down. But it is also any good government official's duty to tell the esteemed Mr. Rockefeller to f* off.
I agree fully with @berbatrick
I came to this differently, from Reagan's election rather than Rockerfeller's interference.
"Reagan sabotaged the negotiations" is the type of comment you'll see under Chomsky videos, usually with dubious sourcing. (Similar - Nixon sabotaged Paris, CIA distributed drugs, etc.) I never knew what to make of them, thinking I should trust the better sourced ones (Nixon-Paris had some okish sourcing) and disregard the conspiracies (Reagan and CIA). But the conspiracies do come true. Reagan is 666, *and* his election was dirty? Too convenient to be true, but here it is.
My breaking point was the Indian Supreme Court which has removed its spine the moment Modi entered office. On theoretical issues where the govt isn't directly involved they're great (they affirmed, 9-0, a right to privacy, and 5-0, decrminalised homosexuality). But a corruption allegation against Modi was dismissed with no explanation, govt policy which seems to violate privacy was passed 4-1. The demolition of a mosque was ruled illegal but in the same judgement, that property was awarded for the building of a temple. (That's been a campaign promise of the ruling party for ~35 years). Many more like that.
So the simpler explanation is that it's not an intellectual debate with inconsistent judges who randomly lose their senses; it's that the nice words on privacy are meant to keep idiots like me happy while on concrete issues the govt has free reign.
So the simpler explanation is that it's not an intellectual debate with inconsistent judges who randomly lose their senses; it's that the nice words on privacy are meant to keep idiots like me happy while on concrete issues the govt has free reign.
Nixon sabotaging Paris and the CIA distributing drugs are just historical fact.
I know about Paris, but is there sources about the CIA?
I haven’t had a chance to read up on this latest release, but the October Surprise has been a ‘respectable’ conspiracy theory for quite a while, with well-established publishers having published stuff on it by credible people like Gary Sick.
I find that short term profit motivated self-interest is far more common in the worst scenarios than incompetence
That’s the thing, it’s not the actual billionaires that are always the problem, it’s the people who are trying to become millionaires and billionaires or who are making decisions purely on behalf of their company or share holders that are more likely to make decisions that have grave impacts on the environment or the population.
yes it is
Only it’s not and you sounds daft claiming it is.
Or a thousand dollars per American
The government could lend this and people pay it back through taxes over let's say 5 years
$200 a year
Less than a dollar a day
That sounds a bit more realistic and achievable than taking everything off three people and what with it being for everybody's future seems reasonably fair
About 50 cents a day to save the future... I mean if people won't chip in that then they won't change the behaviours about consumption we need everybody to change anyway
yes it is and you sounds daft claiming its not
So every decision that has ever negatively impacted the world was made by a billionaire?
Yes.
yeah sure dude
There was a series of news reports a long time ago.
https://web.archive.org/web/19961220020436/http://www.sjmercury.com/drugs/stories.htm
The US government also admitted giving drugs traffickers large sums of cash supposedly to smuggle humanitarian supplies into Nicaragua.
There’s no incontrovertible evidence that the CIA directly distributed drugs, but lots of indicators. Plus is you look at how utterly out of control the CIA were back then, it isn’t even in the top 20 most outrageous things they were involved in.
The whole Iran-Contra thing is just one big, corrupt mess. Always amazes me how the GOP has given messiah status to Reagan when he had that stuff going on.
The US Navy & Special Ops had direct military involvement in that conflict in Nicaragua as well. My dad's ship took them down there, dropped them off at night, then sailed over the horizon. Came back in after several nights and picked them up after their op was complete. Rinse - repeat.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Clearly shopped yess ?
yup. also rouhani is in power.
They're just salty because she rightly called out the Israeli money influence over our politics here.
Gates and Buffett have pledged to give the majority of their wealth away to philanthropic causes.
I think the tweet is demonstrating that the wealth of merely three people can supposedly fund the solution to the climate crisis — not to suggest to take all their money. I’d go on to guess that those three were chosen because they’re the most famous billionaires.
Perhaps. It may also demonstrate that an antipathy towards the wealthy comes ahead of a concern for a particular cause.
thats cute
The antipathy is there because they’re linked, at least if you subscribe to the idea that wealth inequality is a major driver in a lack of funds for things like climate change solutions. And we’re not talking about normal wealthy either. This is the billionaire class we’re talking about. Even though the term is often used, a billion dollars is an unimaginable amount of money.
Anywho I think the tweet could have illustrated this in a better way as to bring perspective without indirectly suggesting we drain all three of their wealth. I did a look at the Forbes 400. Literally and I mean literally if the top 300 billionaires donated $1billion of their wealth to climate change, they’d still be billionaires! (This might actually fuel more antipathy)